The misunderstanding of religion

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Interesting article, very long:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

The first half is a discussion of moral psychology--more science than backroom related. He concludes that humans evolved with five basic spheres of morality:

The individual spheres:
harm/care
fairness/reciprocity

and the binding spheres:
ingroup/loyalty
authority/respect
purity/sanctity

Surveys show that liberals place much more emphasis on the first two, while cultural conservatives weigh them all about equally (this is in the west).

He takes this as the definition of morality:


Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

And shows that there are two ways to accomplish this. In the contractual approach you fine tune the laws and institutions based on the two individual spheres--the other three get in the way since the emphasis is on freedoms. In the beehive approach, instead of emphasizing freedoms the binding spheres of morality are unite to unite people behind a shared moral code.

I'm more of an individualist, so I prefer the contractual approach, however the author makes the point that:


religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.

I agree, and the secularism vs religion debate should be held on this framework instead of the strawmen that are usually thrown around:


a) The new atheists treat religions as sets of beliefs about the world, many of which are demonstrably false. Yet anthropologists and sociologists who study religion stress the role of ritual and community much more than of factual beliefs about the creation of the world or life after death.

b) The new atheists assume that believers, particularly fundamentalists, take their sacred texts literally. Yet ethnographies of fundamentalist communities (such as James Ault's Spirit and Flesh) show that even when people claim to be biblical literalists, they are in fact quite flexible, drawing on the bible selectively—or ignoring it—to justify humane and often quite modern responses to complex social situations.

c) The new atheists all review recent research on religion and conclude that it is an evolutionary byproduct, not an adaptation. They compare religious sentiments to moths flying into candle flames, ants whose brains have been hijacked for a parasite's benefit, and cold viruses that are universal in human societies. This denial of adaptation is helpful for their argument that religion is bad for people, even when people think otherwise.


Anyone who claims to favor science over religion should take a long hard look at the reasons they use to criticize it...thinking of few people from the backroom :beam:

-edit-

It's also interesting to note that there's a strong purity/sanctity strain in the environmentalist camp--which is why the come off as somewhat religious.

[Kadagar_AV]

I can agree that religion can bind people together, who ever questioned that?

However, I would prefer some religion who wasnt as harmful as, say, the christian or muslim ones.

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others. If everyone in the world shared a belief, religion could be a positive force, however, in its current function it excludes and creates problem as much, if not more, than it helps.

It's all about what perspective you have.


On a sidenote: OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"? However, I have a hard time believing some dusty old book just so I can get to bond with some american redneck..

[Marshal Murat]

Religion would be tremendously bonding, provided it moves along the previous course that it's taken. Taking the aforementioned article into consideration, he supposes that religion bonds together groups to ensure group survival. Religions across the world derived from these early religions and expanded to include more in it's "group". Islam began in Mecca and Medina but now bonds together most of the globe. This progression can only continue until we have one "bonding" religion that unites us all at the simplest religious/moral level.


OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"?
Which is ironic because Buddhists are "enlightened" once they understand humanity!

The article was very interesting to read, it recognized emotion as a motivator rather than some appendage to "logical morality". I wouldn't doubt that the best organization would be sub-groups of "Bee-Hives" to ensure continuation and effectiveness of the Group, but have the Group headed by those who are willing to innovate.

[Sigurd]

It is interestingly noted that the Latin word Religio[n] which is borrowed by nearly every language means binding together.

[KukriKhan]

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others.

Yet:



On a sidenote: OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"? However, I have a hard time believing some dusty old book just so I can get to bond with some american redneck..

he religiously excludes bonding "...with some american redneck".

LOL

[Fragony]

I see no contradiction

[Mooks]

I really dont buy that religion makes you happier. When I was religios, I was constantly worrying about sinning, and feeling constantly guilty about it too. Having thoughtcrimes are NOT fun at all, and im so happy not have anymore the guilty feeling of looking at a cute girl sexually, or taking a couple quarters from my brother when I didnt have enough for bus money (I was pretty strict with myself, with the belief that I was almost certain to go to hell). Maybe I didnt get the flip side of the coin; unity. The youth group/church things I was going to were akward for me, felt like barely anyone was being themselves throughout those things.


The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others. If everyone in the world shared a belief, religion could be a positive force, however, in its current function it excludes and creates problem as much, if not more, than it helps.

Used to go to a southern baptist (brimstone and fire!) type of church for a little bit. This quote is definitely true for that type of church (cant say much about the other types of churches I went too, as they didnt talk about "outsiders" much). The pastor tried to paint a picture in everyones mind as christrians being prosecuted worldwide, how they were on the defensive and how everyone needs to pitch in before the world falls to the muslim/atheist hoarde. Makes me laugh now, did a little bit back then too :dizzy2: .


As a student of history, it's interesting to read it and realize that--in a lot of non-literal ways--the Bible is the History of Civilization. I don't mean that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Adam was the first man, but I do mean that by understanding religion objectively you increase your understanding of humanity and history.

Im curios, do you feel the same when you read the Illiad or the nordic Saga's? Or the ancient Indian texts?

[Rhyfelwyr]

9 MILLION

https://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2589/emotvhappy2.jpg (https://img16.imageshack.us/i/emotvhappy2.jpg/)

Seriously though, religion has elements that make you happier, other bits maybe won't.

At the end of the day though, I don't really see the point in doing anything if there is no God, no universal morality etc.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yet:

he religiously excludes bonding "...with some american redneck".

LOL


I see no contradiction.

You can hardly criticize religion for excluding others while saying you would never bond with an "american redneck". One of the main points of the article was that atheists needs to be less militant and more objective...of course if atheists aren't militant about their moral ideas then how do they enforce them on their members? Through laws alone?

-edit-
One thing I would consider, is that these days the people who would be most discontent in a religious society leave the religion and aren't reflected in the happiness polls.

[Vladimir]

So by conservatives in the West I take it you mean those who fall under the American definition of social conservatism? If so, then I'm glad to hear we're the most balanced. :2thumbsup:

What is the bias of the author? Yes, we all have biases.

[Samurai Waki]

I will admit religion is a good thing, when they can admit abortion is a good thing :laugh4:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So by conservatives in the West I take it you mean those who fall under the American definition of social conservatism? If so, then I'm glad to hear we're the most balanced. :2thumbsup:



That wasn't really the takeaway point...the "balanced" view leads to bans on flag burning and such, which surely lead to a more unified, patriotic society. Essentially it is exchanging freedom for security.

[HoreTore]

I think any "athiest" or otherwise non-religious person with half a brain and an open mind can see that Religion by itself is a good force, and not a bad one. I own a King James Bible, and I'm currently reading through it--and not for the first time. I have not been baptised, and I don't go to church, but I consider it a learning experience every time I read this book.

Why is it so hard to understand that other people are capable of seeing religion in a completely different way than you do?

[Vladimir]

That wasn't really the takeaway point...the "balanced" view leads to bans on flag burning and such, which surely lead to a more unified, patriotic society. Essentially it is exchanging freedom for security.

According to the author, the balanced view leads to a happier, longer, and more fulfilling life. No where does it confirm your Orwellian fears. (OK, I didn't read the last 1/3rd)

So, you're saying balanced individuals are bad then?

Someone needs to work on his cognitive biases.


Why is it so hard to understand that other people are capable of seeing religion in a completely different way than you do?

You're exactly right, kinda. It isn't about the religion. It's about the people.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

According to the author, the balanced view leads to a happier, longer, and more fulfilling life. No where does it confirm your Orwellian fears. (OK, I didn't read the last 1/3rd), you're saying balanced individuals are bad then?

Someone needs to work on his cognitive biases.

I'm saying purity is not as important as fairness and caring--homosexuality may be disgusting, but not allowing gay marriage is unfair and uncaring. If you read the quote here:


Cultural conservatives work hard to cultivate moral virtues based on the three binding foundations: ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity, as well as on the universally employed foundations of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. The beehive ideal is not a world of maximum freedom, it is a world of order and tradition in which people are united by a shared moral code that is effectively enforced, which enables people to trust each other to play their interdependent roles. It is a world of very high social capital and low anomie.

He explains that the binding moral virtues are cultivated to ensure that the other foundations are enforced.

You are saying that the five spheres are equally important and should be balanced out--but even in religion 3 of the spheres are important only to ensure protection of the other two. In a contractual society we use other means, and thereby grant people more freedoms, at a slight cost to average happiness and longevity.

Balanced is not inherently good.

As for flag burning, it was an issue a while back.

[Centurion1]

I can agree that religion can bind people together, who ever questioned that?

However, I would prefer some religion who wasnt as harmful as, say, the christian or muslim ones.
Religion ain't harmful, it is some of the people who practice it (extremists). there are pleny of atheists who cause harm. Maybe, i can claim it is because they are not catholic?

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others. If everyone in the world shared a belief, religion could be a positive force, however, in its current function it excludes and creates problem as much, if not more, than it helps.
Well, people are different and certain religions don't fit. for instance i like the ability of to eat pork and drink beer, so no islam for me. Oh and tolerance can be taught. Nationalism is just as often a force of war and hate. Do you recommend we all become a single country?

It's all about what perspective you have.
Truth


On a sidenote: OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"? However, I have a hard time believing some dusty old book just so I can get to bond with some american redneck..
Biased. I do not know where you live, but American rednecks have saved the free and western world. They serve in over 50% of americas armed forces while being around 30% of the population, and without that "redneck" we would have lost a lot of wars, that affected other people...........

Oh and my "CATHOLIC" priest has multiple degrees from prestigious universities like John Hopkins. Yeah it ain't the dark ages buddy, most religious clergy are very well educated.



Refutation in the quotes and bolded

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting article, I shall leave the science in the article for what it is. (What's with that 'new atheist' stuff? To make atheism sound more sinister, more a matter of social fashion than of deeply held conviction?)
Regarding the 'communal' values of religion, yes, something got lost in an atheist world that I deplore. Or rather, would deplore if it wasn't part of a social and belief system whose demise I do not deplore.

I wrote some thoughts about it not too long ago, thoughts that occupied my aunt's head, and mine:

I went to Church!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been to church. Unfortunately, the occasion was not a joyous one. My dear auntie had passed away, at too young an age. For private reasons, she had requested a traditional Catholic funeral. Save for a handful, none of my (her) relatives under seventy are religious. Neither was she. On the contrary. A libertine, a progressive, a business woman with her own high-tech firm. Did she have a conversion in the final hour? Did she long for the tradition? The consolation of eternal life?

I am an atheist, and a fiery anti-clericalist to boot. I am also a baptized Catholic. The choice whether to partake in the rite was respectfully left up to individual attendees. I partook in the rite.

The mass was beautiful, very traditional. I must hand it to the Catholics: they’ve got style. Incense, a choir lamenting the deceased, a procession to the graveyard. The tradition of it all had a comforting effect. One felt part of something enduring. Life and death were made less absolute. Death becomes a rite of passage, the soul of the departed moves on. Simultaneously, the community congregates, comes together, celebrates the continuity of the line. Those that have come before, and those that will come after, are made part of a single whole.

Beautiful day too. Great setting: deep down south, in a small village. Half my family is from there, many still live there. A place where time has stood still, where life has a different pace. The whole extended family was together, everybody dressed in black, looking stunningly beautiful. (To say I have a good-looking family would be an understatement) An old country church – still a centre of life for the community. Great banquet afterwards. Wine, bread, sun.


There is something to be said for old ways. For both 'the province' and for church. They are socially suffocating, intellectually stunting. I would wither away. Yet, there are undeniable qualities: community spirit, warmth, a sense of belonging.

[...]

One can love something that one loathes - that is one thing I discovered. For all the melancholic appreciation I feel for them, for all my admittance of enviable qualities, I know both Catholicism and the province to be full of hypocrisy, of petty feuds, of narrow-mindedness.
What is clear, is that the line between tradition, religiosity, and community overlap. I associate religion with rurality, tradition, a smaller social scale, longer-lasting and less voluntary social ties. About each, I have conflicting feelings indeed. A lot has been gained, a lot has been lost.


religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.
There is one problem with the article. Yes, religion has fine community values. The author jubilantly concludes that the atheism/religious debate ought to concentrate on this. However, once the jubilant 'gotcha!' makes way for more reflection, it is clear that this position will soon get religious folk into trouble. One should, namely, then accept that one could change all the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and what not, into whatever new nonsense and it wouldn't make any difference.

In other words, if I were to force Christians to burn the bible and worship my hairy arse instead they'd still be as happy and community-spirited and generous to charity. This aspect of religionism is exactly why I am an atheist, and why debate about religion ought not be limited to the author's framework.

[Mooks]

Refutation in the quotes and bolded

Is it because some of the people that practice it are extremists? Even so, the moderates of any religion lend credence to the extremists.


Well, people are different and certain religions don't fit. for instance i like the ability of to eat pork and drink beer, so no islam for me. Oh and tolerance can be taught. Nationalism is just as often a force of war and hate. Do you recommend we all become a single country?

Are you serios? :shame:


Biased. I do not know where you live, but American rednecks have saved the free and western world. They serve in over 50% of americas armed forces while being around 30% of the population, and without that "redneck" we would have lost a lot of wars, that affected other people...........

And?.........




Oh and my "CATHOLIC" priest has multiple degrees from prestigious universities like John Hopkins. Yeah it ain't the dark ages buddy, most religious clergy are very well educated.

Theology is the study of ignorance. Or at least one aspect of human ignorance. Everyone knows that clergy receive degrees, that still doesnt make them right. You can become knowledgable about any creation myth, its still a creation myth.

And during the dark ages the clergy were one of the very few groups that were still educated (able to read/write/ect). Its because of early church that alot of writings still exist from the Roman era.

[HoreTore]

Where in my post do you see religious intolerance? Seriously. Ditch the knee-jerkiness. It's not becoming of someone who's trying to put forth a supposedly enlightened viewpoint based on objectivity at the expense of blind faith.

:idea2:

While you might feel that religion is a fundamentally good thing, others do not.

[InsaneApache]

9 MILLION

https://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2589/emotvhappy2.jpg (https://img16.imageshack.us/i/emotvhappy2.jpg/)

Seriously though, religion has elements that make you happier, other bits maybe won't.

At the end of the day though, I don't really see the point in doing anything if there is no God, no universal morality etc.

Well you could always just live your life to the best. I'm always intrigued by the argument that life is empty and shallow if you deny the creator. The opposite is true for me. As I do not believe in an afterlife I make sure I get the max out of the only one I've got. You know it makes sense. :wink:

[Husar]

There is one problem with the article. Yes, religion has fine community values. The author jubilantly concludes that the atheism/religious debate ought to concentrate on this. However, once the jubilant 'gotcha!' makes way for more reflection, it is clear that this position will soon get religious folk into trouble. One should, namely, then accept that one could change all the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and what not, into whatever new nonsense and it wouldn't make any difference.

In other words, if I were to force Christians to burn the bible and worship my hairy arse instead they'd still be as happy and community-spirited and generous to charity. This aspect of religionism is exactly why I am an atheist, and why debate about religion ought not be limited to the author's framework.

I think the point of the article is more along the lines that atheists should not be so fiercely opposed to religion, to point out that religion has it's benefits and that there is a reason for people to be religious.
The way I see it he just says when people have some sort of religion they can relate to they often become nice towards eachother, get more communal spirit etc. which is mostly an argument against the folks who run around screaming religion is the greatest evil and we should get rid of it altogether.
Let everyone decide that for themselves and appreciate that religion causes some people to be nicer than if they were atheists. :shrug:
They might be interchangeable for you but they are not for religious people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The way I see it he just says when people have some sort of religion they can relate to they often become nice towards eachother, get more communal spirit etc. which is mostly an argument against the folks who run around screaming religion is the greatest evil and we should get rid of it altogether.
Let everyone decide that for themselves and appreciate that religion causes some people to be nicer than if they were atheists. :shrug:

Although the historical evidence is that religion causes groups of people who identify with each other's beliefs to be considerably more beastly to those who do not so identify.

One might well be happier in one's peer group, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that those outside the peer group feel safer or happier if they are in a minority. The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

[KukriKhan]

The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

LOL, yes... one might almost say (in a whisper, of course) they're religious in their zeal. :laugh4:

Sorry. The concept always cracks me up. Why do atheists even care what theists think?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sorry. The concept always cracks me up. Why do atheists even care what theists think?

I imagine some of the ire comes from the undue influence over public social policy. If one's choices are restrained by another's belief system, one might become somewhat exercised about that belief system.

Very few people seem to fume about Buddhist political influence in Washington or London, for example.

[Vladimir]

Very few people seem to fume about Buddhist political influence in Washington or London, for example.

:daisy: hippies are ruining the country!

[Husar]

Although the historical evidence is that religion causes groups of people who identify with each other's beliefs to be considerably more beastly to those who do not so identify.

One might well be happier in one's peer group, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that those outside the peer group feel safer or happier if they are in a minority. The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

You're absolutely correct which is, I guess, why I rather see myself as agnostic than atheist because I'm not a fan of groups that exclude others at all. It does however often depend on the amount of religiosity, a very zealous atheist(HoreTore for example*) is about as closed to other beliefs as for example Fred Phelps, the church I still go to however usually welcomes everyone no matter what they believe(yet I have not told them about my change of belief for some reason :shrug: ), it also depends on the people involved and how fanatic they become about it, fanaticism is not exactly the same as belief though IMO, fanatics of any branch are bad, regardless of what they do or do not believe. History has seen a lot of fanatics and prejudice in general.

[Centurion1]

And during the dark ages the clergy were one of the very few groups that were still educated (able to read/write/ect). Its because of early church that alot of writings still exist from the Roman era.

Yes, but as a whole even the clergy were still uneducated. your average village priest was most likely not able to read or write. I am merely saying, that while what they preach may or may not be right, it does not mean they are ignorant for preaching it.

The Muslim part was a joke. what i mean is that some religions are tailor made to certain cultures and it would be very hard to see that point of view unless you were born in that environment. As to the nationalism bit i am serious.

[HoreTore]

So, basically, "I'm right, you're wrong!"?

Uhm, no. That would be the exact opposite. You can feel that religion is good all you want, I have nothing to do with it, nothing against it, nor will I ever be able to change your opinion about it. I, on the other hand, feel that religion isn't a good thing. There's no discussion here, we won't ever agree. I have my view, you have yours.

But I really don't see why you have a need to call people like me idiots.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Although the historical evidence is that religion causes groups of people who identify with each other's beliefs to be considerably more beastly to those who do not so identify.

One might well be happier in one's peer group, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that those outside the peer group feel safer or happier if they are in a minority. The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

The historical evidence is hard to analyze because people fought constantly for all kinds of reasons. But as the author said, the beehive structure has to protect itself from outside attack--which is why the contractual method is better for today's societies.


Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

I think this was the real bone the author had to pick. You can't stand for science and objectivity while casting them aside to make arguments against religion.

[Marshal Murat]

I love how "religion" often only covers Christianity and Islam, not Buddhism or Jainism.

[HoreTore]

I love how "religion" often only covers Christianity and Islam, not Buddhism or Jainism.

That's simply because we're from the US and western europe. We've had no contact with any other religions.

[Vladimir]

That's simply because we're from the US and western europe. We've had no contact with any other religions.

:inquisitive:

An error in translation? Religion may be otherworldly but they're all from the same planet.

[HoreTore]

:inquisitive:

An error in translation? Religion may be otherworldly but they're all from the same planet.

Hm? Our countries have had next to zero influence from buddhism or any other eastern religion. Makes sense that we neither know anything about them nor care about them.

[Mooks]

Hm? The people I know and me have had next to zero influence from buddhism or any other eastern religion. Makes sense that we neither know anything about them nor care about them.

Fixed for you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think the point of the article is more along the lines that atheists should not be so fiercely opposed to religion, to point out that religion has it's benefits and that there is a reason for people to be religious.Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...:shame:)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

[KukriKhan]

Hmmm... Louis makes a tough argument. As usual.

I point out the wide variety of actual beliefs, and attachment to dogma, of any individual religious person. Their ideas about a creator, saviors, saints, sins, and the whole shebang are widely divergent, even among regular church-goers.

So maybe "religion" is two things (and serves 2 purposes):

1) a set of beliefs and moral imperatives held by individual humans that adhere only to the limits of their imaginations and
2) a Church, a community, of similarly-, but not identically-, minded others; because we like company and reassurance, and reinforcement.

-edit-
And Louis is right, mostly: #2 above could be (and is) served equally well through being a member of any sub-group; pub regular for example. Backroom regular, for another.

[Reenk Roink]

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

And you were doing so well until here... :juggle2:

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right.

Louis, I always like your posts even if we disagree, but I think you should be more careful that you have got things right if you are going to mention individual members. I have not been indoctrinated into any beliefs. As a child, baptism, weddings, and funerals were the sum of my involvement with the Kirk. I was raised by one parent who is nominally religious, another who is practically a militant atheist. In fact, the ridicule and later grudging acceptance I have gotten from friends and family has been important in God breaking me down. Also, I have not been indoctrinated into anything since becoming a Christian, you only need to look at another thread to see what I think of the Kirk of late. As to why I came to the beliefs I have which are similar to those historically held by the Kirk, that is because of my studying of the English Puritans and nothing to do with national identity/whatever you think it is, and that forged the direction in my studying of theology etc. You might even say I did everything of my own free will... :beam: :smash:

I'm sure the other people you mentioned have not been indoctrinated either, but they can speak for themselves.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...:shame:)

Yes, I could live a lie. I could believe that there is a single self inside my head (an illusion according to neuroscience) and that I do things because that self just happened to choose them. You could do this as well.



Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'

We tell kids fairy tales all the time, and not just santa claus. You could tell your kids star wars is real, but they'd quit believing you pretty quick, unless that belief and the community provided enough of a benefit for them. I think it's easy to depict religious people as drugged and indoctrinated into believing what they do, but the fact is people have a natural tendency towards religious belief. Many atheists turn towards some kind of spirituality. Many people stick with their religion even though they realize that the bible is not factually accurate. If teaching your kids christianity was no different than teaching them star wars there would be far fewer religious people.


Besides the fact that parents indoctrinate their children to a certain extent no matter what their religious beliefs...I don't think it has as big effect as you think. More comes down to genetics and random experiences than to parents, siblings, teachers and peer group.


And Louis is right, mostly: #2 above could be (and is) served equally well through being a member of any sub-group; pub regular for example. Backroom regular, for another.

But then you have the pub, the backroom, your friends, your workplace, and family--so there is no unified message. Your parents can think abortion is murder, your liberal workplace can think everyone should get one, the people at the pub think people should make up your own minds. The strength and weakness of this is that people tend to make up there own minds more often.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...:shame:)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

I refute you on two points.

1. I will teach my children what I believe to be true, if my beliefs made me deluded in your eyes, so be it.

2. If anything I was brought up a Methodist, but my parents told me God didn't exist before I was 10.

For the record, I don't believe in teaching people morally bankrupt values in order to make them, "happy adults". For starters, it doesn't work because the facade always cracks and you're left with a damaged and mal-adjusted human being.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And you were doing so well until here... :juggle2:The quote is apocryphical.

I have here an elder scroll that ends with:
Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Teaching children, with all the best intentions of the parents of course, a moral system based on an ancient books and its derived theology, can lead to trouble. For the system to function, the book will have to be held sacred, above criticism. This leads to uncritical thinking, or even worse, stiltifying dogma. Either one accepts the truth, or one doesn't. Both are problematic.

(If George Lucas can tinker with his creative output, so can I)


Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

Louis, I feel the author would agree with you completely. His statement about religious people being happier etc was not meant to say we should consider becoming religious but rather we should consider what leads to that happiness.


My conclusion is not that secular liberal societies should be made more religious and conservative in a utilitarian bid to increase happiness, charity, longevity, and social capital. Too many valuable rights would be at risk, too many people would be excluded, and societies are so complex that it's impossible to do such social engineering and get only what you bargained for. My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.

This is somewhat fallacious, because contemporary morality is based on the course our society has taken and until relatively recently Christianity was very much the beating heart of our culture and accepted norm. This also has nothing to do with Syrians, but with Romans, Hellenists, and Hellenised Jews.

They shared quite a bit with a 21st Century American.


The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

It is not the belief system, but the manner of belief. I present Richard Darkins as exibit A.


Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.

People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.


If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

This I agree with, the author advocates nothing.

However, neither do you. Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually write, if one of us is you are in big trouble.

[miotas]

Now you fellas are just gonna think I'm taking the piss, but I am quite serious. Sport is the solution. Here in Australia only about 10% of the population is actually religious, ie going to church, and that includes all religions, not just christianity. Yet we still have activities that bind the population together, and these are sporting events, you could quite truthfully say that most sports fans follow their teams religiously.

Most children are indoctrinated, from when they are only a few years old, into believing that they should always follow their team regardless of how well they may happen to be performing. Something that mirrors religious people blindly following their faith. And while sport may produce friendly rivalries, it never inspires outright hatred. Sport produces very accepting groups, 2 people can sit down together and have a beer together while their teams beat the :daisy: out of each other. Basically sport gives all the grouping benefits that one gets from religion without the negative exclusion side effects.

You could almost say that we've done what Louis was saying with his comments about the force and replaced religion with sport.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, I always like your posts even if we disagree, but I think you should be more careful that you have got things right if you are going to mention individual members. That 'you 'know' God exists' is a direct quote from you yourself, from several months ago. (Don't make me drag it up!)

You don't think it at all uncoincidental that a Scotsman would reach the conclusion that the Scottish Kirk is the right church?


People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.I don't think the religious are morally bankrupt. In my first post in this thread, I quoted some of my thoughts about how my aunt, a firm atheist, requested a Catholic burial. I rather enjoyed and admired the tradition, community values, passing on the line, the ritual. I partook in the rite. I have very much mixed feelings about it.


Louis, I feel the author would agree with you completely.I hate it when that happens. :wall:

No, I know. I don't disagree with him either. In my opinion, the loss of religion (I'm urban, atheist European) has not been entirely positive. (But I am not sure where the line is here between religion and tradition, smaller social circles, more community values, involuntary social bonds etc. The author goes some way to describing this connection)
I am making a pre-emptive strike against those who would triumphantly regard the article as a WMD for more Christianity.


Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually right, if one of us is you are in big troubleI am not necessarly arguing God doesn't exist. More that it wouldn't matter if he did or didn't for the arguments brought up here in favour of religion.

Also, there is also one fallacious Christian argument in your post: No, if God does turn out to exist, I still would not worship him. Before He can finish saying 'and these harpsicord-playing Cherubs don't have sex eithe..', I'll have Him guillotined and myself crowned as Emperor. Then I'll pounce earth for forty days with floods and earthquakes for giggles.

[Marshal Murat]

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

Some religious people are moderate, some aren't. You cannot say that all atheists are "free-thinking" without excluding some of the "fashionable Atheists" and the "Crazy Atheists".



Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality?
Religion (in the beginning at least) was imposed morality. Hinduism teaches everyone that they have a place in society based on their caste, and imposes social order and mores on everyone regardless of age/sex/level of intelligence.


My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.
The problem (if you accept the Authors theory) with "suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, enhancing human flourishing" is if the organization is "conceptual" then those who organize the group decide what is "fair" and while no doubt spurring innovation and free-thinking, it cannot hold itself together as a group unless it has some over-arching system of control (how do anarchist hold meetings?). If embracing all groups, then the system and group is held together, probably at the price of change to adapt. So early societies create, through human intelligence, a method of binding the community (religion) while also ensuring that there are freedoms within the community.

While "atheism" may hold many alluring points (there is no God, it's all fairy tales, think critically), there is no incentive to "behave morally" if there is no reason to do so because of hell/purgatory/karma/etc. One could establish a group-control mechanism (honor code), but that only works if everyone agrees to it and abides by it. Game theory tripe that I don't care to read about or something.

[InsaneApache]

So how do we free thinkers help the brainwashed taked off their blinkers? Tis a hard one.

[Husar]

Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...:shame:)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

Well, I grew up like that myself, yet I changed. Chrisitans even say you have to constantly read the bible and surround yourself with other christians so as to not lose focus, heh. One of the things that made me wonder a bit. Part of the change though came when I moved away and started to live alone.
I don't see the problem with letting people believe fairy tales though, they do anyway. Have you never seen those people who run around feeling enlightened but then make silly jokes about the number 13 etc. as if they actually thought it was true but they were afraid to admit it? So many people don't just drop religion or spirituality, they just find something new, and in a way they may actually need it. Not all people are the same and different people need different things to make them happy. There was even a guy on TV who said he found a relation between the religiosity of people and how extensive/active a certain part of the brain behind the left ear is. Unfortuantely I don't remember his name. I just think religion and atheism might not just be a simple matter of choice and truth or fairy tales, like being gay seems to be not just a matter of choice as religious people often claim.
There might be very deep reasons that some people believe in this or that and others don't.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That 'you 'know' God exists' is a direct quote from you yourself, from several months ago. (Don't make me drag it up!)

You don't think it at all uncoincidental that a Scotsman would reach the conclusion that the Scottish Kirk is the right church?

Bah! Knowing God exists is just part of the nature of the faith for many people, and does not mean we were indoctrinated into believing it.

However, I do not 'know' that every point of doctrine I hold to is correct. Maybe we should only be baptised as adults, maybe we really do have free will. I also do not think the Kirk is the 'right church', I nearly joined a Baptist church but the guitar-playing and hand-clapping scared me away. I disagree with the Kirk on a great deal of issues, I simply attend its services because it is what is available, it is nothing more special than a regional manifestation of God's universal church. The historically Calvinist views of the Kirk which I believe in are just a happy coincidence from my having studied Puritan theologians. There's no indoctrination involved, can't you at least concede the possibility that not all religious people are brainwashed?

[Reenk Roink]

Louis, I basically liked your entire analysis on the article, I certainly agree with your holistic gist that the benefits mentioned in the articles could be achieved by swapping belief systems, though I will squabble that not any "myth" (I use the term in the technical sense and not in the colloquial way that carries the negative connotations including being false) can suffice. It takes quite a myth to carry out the social impact described like ancient polytheistic systems (and Hinduism which survives in the present), Buddhism, and the Abrahamic traditions. The status of the force as being worth of a myth is up to debate. :beam:

Just thought the last part was a bit too extreme as just a cursory examination of some of the religious folk that frequent the Backroom would lead one to conclude it is improbable that they are simply mimicking what they were taught as children. I also don't think some myths are (totally) false as you believe it to be, so I think we can have our cake and eat it in certain cases. But you are entitled to creative liberties. :laugh4:

I also don't believe the author was at all trying to promote actual metaphysical truth value of any religion in the first place but your arguments would certainly be cogent though if that was being done.

Lastly the sport angle brought up is quite interesting. I'll point out that there is a course being taught at Université de Montréal on the Montreal Canadiens (hockey team) as a religion (in their theology department). :book:

[HoreTore]

Fixed for you.

So.... You have an intimate knowledge of Buddhism, and you've gained that knowledge through first-hand experience in your own community....?

Hey, good for you if you have, but I do believe you're in the minority here then.

[Centurion1]

I think as an average westerner i have pretty good access to eastern religions. i know a lot about Shintoism, Buddhism, one of my moms friends is hindi, Muslims (one of my friends is Muslim), my grandmother follows a lot of "Confucianism" (more like a life choice than a religion).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Louis completely missed my points, but nevermind.

About Sport: In Britain a lot of men go through cycles of rage and despair when their football team loses. There are cases of impotence and abuce for people with teams on long winning streaks. Sport provides too transient a payoff, and it's too competative, it can't even hold individual nations together.

[Rhyfelwyr]

About Sport: In Britain a lot of men go through cycles of rage and despair when their football team loses. There are cases of impotence and abuce for people with teams on long winning streaks. Sport provides too transient a payoff, and it's too competative, it can't even hold individual nations together.

And that's not even going into the Old Firm (Rangers and Celtic FC for those wondering), apparently cases of domestic abuse skyrocket after every match.

[HoreTore]

Well, Louis completely missed my points, but nevermind.

About Sport: In Britain a lot of men go through cycles of rage and despair when their football team loses. There are cases of impotence and abuce for people with teams on long winning streaks. Sport provides too transient a payoff, and it's too competative, it can't even hold individual nations together.

"Some say football is a matter of life and death. I'm disappointed by that attitude; it is far more important than that."

Oh, and Rhyfelwyr, perhaps you should keep christianity's track record on domestic violence in mind when making such statements.... ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh, and Rhyfelwyr, perhaps you should keep christianity's track record on domestic violence in mind when making such statements.... ~;)

I don't think you can blame that on Christianity, is there any society in history where domestic violence has not happened, never mind being fairly commonplace?

[HoreTore]

I don't think you can blame that on Christianity, is there any society in history where domestic violence has not happened, never mind being fairly commonplace?

And yet you blame it on a football match?

[Marshal Murat]

And yet you blame it on a football match?

I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, disappointed because the local priest didn't say the sermon that he wanted. That hardly inspires serious domestic violence like the disappointment in the local team, if this is really the time for a discussion of religion in relation to domestic violence.

[HoreTore]

I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, disappointed because the local priest didn't say the sermon that he wanted. That hardly inspires serious domestic violence like the disappointment in the local team, if this is really the time for a discussion of religion in relation to domestic violence.

Nah, not that situation. But how 'bout this one:

"I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, excited because the local priest said that a wife is to be obedient to her husband, and that the husband should feel free to punish her as he sees fit."

And don't say that's never happened.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nah, not that situation. But how 'bout this one:

"I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, excited because the local priest said that a wife is to be obedient to her husband, and that the husband should feel free to punish her as he sees fit."

And don't say that's never happened.

Hardly the same, your notional Catholic doesn't walk in the door burning up with rage and looking for something to take it out on.

Also, I'd like to see you cite teaching that says the husband can, "punish her as he sees fit", generally the clergy were more interested in limiting domestic violence; even if you don't think those limitations went far enough.

[Marshal Murat]

"I can see it now, a French Catholic returns home, excited because the local priest said that a wife is to be obedient to her husband, and that the husband should feel free to punish her as he sees fit."
It sounds more like a man who enjoys domestic abuse and only looking for an excuse to do so. How about in the Ming Dynasty when the parents could bind the feet of their daughters with impunity? That sounds like domestic violence to me, sanctioned but not influenced by Christianity at all.

[Centurion1]

Your examples sounds alot like what would happen if a Muslim woman showed her face in public in the middle ages Horetore. That of course is ok, right.

[HoreTore]

Also, I'd like to see you cite teaching that says the husband can, "punish her as he sees fit", generally the clergy were more interested in limiting domestic violence; even if you don't think those limitations went far enough.

1. Where did I say that there was any kind of justification in the religion itself? Where in the rules of Football does it say that having your team lose means you get to beat your wife?
2. Football is heavily involved in reducing violence, crime, hatred, racism, etc. Anywhere, at anytime. That's part of what you learn when you play football; you learn that you have to interact with others to reach a goal. You learn to do your part to reach it. You experience a sense of belonging to something greater than yourself, something most of those who turn to crime doesn't have.


It sounds more like a man who enjoys domestic abuse and only looking for an excuse to do so. How about in the Ming Dynasty when the parents could bind the feet of their daughters with impunity? That sounds like domestic violence to me, sanctioned but not influenced by Christianity at all.

1. Like someone who beats his wife because his footy team lost isn't a man who enjoys beating his wife.
2. Since when did I claim domestic violence was caused by christianity, or had anything to do with christianity? Try reading my reply again, it was a response to the, in my opinion, ridiculous claim that football causes domestic violence. If you accept that football causes domestic violence, then by god, you'd better accept that christianity causes domestic violence. I don't accept either, though.


Your examples sounds alot like what would happen if a Muslim woman showed her face in public in the middle ages Horetore. That of course is ok, right.

By the heavens, is this "Christian Sensitivity Day", or what?

While it's usually acceptable to read between the lines, reading outside the page usually isn't a good idea.

[Marshal Murat]

Oh, and Rhyfelwyr, perhaps you should keep christianity's track record on domestic violence in mind when making such statements

How else is one supposed to interpret this statement?

[HoreTore]

How else is one supposed to interpret this statement?

Uhm....

How 'bout "the correct way"? Or even better, why not try simply reading it, instead of trying to interpret it to death?

It certainly should not be interpreted as "Christianity (alone) is the cause of all domestic violence". How you people managed to get that from it is beyond me, really.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm....

How 'bout "the correct way"? Or even better, why not try simply reading it, instead of trying to interpret it to death?

It certainly should not be interpreted as "Christianity (alone) is the cause of all domestic violence". How you people managed to get that from it is beyond me, really.

It's pretty clearly aimed at insinuating Christianity causes violence, given that Rhy and I were explicitely saying Football does. As to crime, racism etc. Football worsens those, especially when national teams are involved.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't take my word for it, here are some figures (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2496879.0.domestic_violence_surges_after_old_firm_games_police_reveal.php), an 88% rise is pretty significant.

[HoreTore]

It's pretty clearly aimed at insinuating Christianity causes violence, given that Rhy and I were explicitely saying Football does.

Pure nonsense.

It was aimed at ridiculing your claim that football causes domestic violence. I was reminding Rhy that the case against christianity would be as good as the case against football - but then again, I don't believe that football causes violence. And I don't believe that christianity itself causes violence. Idiots watching football? Sure, they can get violent. Idiots preaching at a church? Sure, they can encourage violence. None of them represent the mainstream of either.


As to crime, racism etc. Football worsens those, especially when national teams are involved.

Nonsense again. Football is more than the elites. Football is about the millions of children who play the game. Those you see on the telly is just a tiny bit of what football is about. Football worsens racism and causes violence? No. Some supporters show obvious racism and get violent when watching football. But those are people who already are racist and violent, they would've caused the same trouble with or without football. They use a football match as their excuse to get violent - if not for football, they would've found another excuse.

And again, that's a tiny tiny part of what football is about. For the majority of football players, the millions of children, football represent teamwork, joy, tolerance, a feeling that they're mastering something... I could go on for pages.

Take Norway Cup. I remember my last year in that cup, in the last game we were knocked out by a side from Ghana. We were soundly thrashed, it's the only time I've actually been dizzy after trying to stop a striker... You think anyone on my team thought of africans as sub-humans or whatever after that experience? No, we gained a respect for them. An immense respect.


And if you find a Norwegian who doesn't want Carew on the national side because he's black, or a swede who doesn't want Ibrahimovic because he's muslim.... Well, then you've probably found yourself one of the world's most hardened racists.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think what you say there is generally true HoreTore, but don't you think that the sporting events themselves do provide an outlet for the thugs?


And if you find a Norwegian who doesn't want Carew on the national side because he's black, or a swede who doesn't want Ibrahimovic because he's muslim.... Well, then you've probably found yourself one of the world's most hardened racists.

Kind of off topic, but isn't the whole idea of national football teams racist? IIRC, one of the football bodies defined racism as discrimination based on ethnicity or nationality (after some Old Firm controversy, surprise, surprise). So if only Scots can play for Scotland, Nigerians for Nigeria, Mexicans for Mexico etc...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly, you know nothing about British Football, "A Gentleman's game played by thugs".

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since HoreTore is continuing in his beliefs despite the given statistical data which should lead him to believe otherwise, I can only presume HoreTore's beliefs are founded upon blind faith, why argue with him? :beam::smash:

[Centurion1]

^ Ah, and the pure futility of even arguing in the backroom is revelaed. NO ONE changes their minds.

[miotas]

Maybe low scores and no on-field violence are the cause of your trouble, maybe the fans feel the need to make up for there being no action during the game.:grin:(sorry couldn't help myself)

Seriously though, I don't know if it's the nature of the sports we predominately play (cricket, NRL, AFL) or if we are just more relaxed here, but the kind of game related violence you guys are describing just doesn't really happen here. Like I mentioned earlier, 2 people following opposing teams can sit down together and have a few drinks while whatching their teams thrash each other, and if your team so happens to lose, it is a given that the other bloke has bragging rights and will give you plenty of :daisy: about it, but you take it on the chin since you get to do the same next time his team loses. Hitting someone because your team lost just isn't cricket.

[Banquo's Ghost]

^ Ah, and the pure futility of even arguing in the backroom is revelaed. NO ONE changes their minds.

You just haven't been around long enough. Granted, it's rare, but people do adjust their positions and sometimes even admit to it.

The quality of the debate and the experience and wisdom of members is marvellous. One learns something everyday.

:bow:

[HoreTore]

I think what you say there is generally true HoreTore, but don't you think that the sporting events themselves do provide an outlet for the thugs?

Do you think that certain ministers provide an outlet for the thugs?


Kind of off topic, but isn't the whole idea of national football teams racist? IIRC, one of the football bodies defined racism as discrimination based on ethnicity or nationality (after some Old Firm controversy, surprise, surprise). So if only Scots can play for Scotland, Nigerians for Nigeria, Mexicans for Mexico etc...

Nonsense. As evidence to the contrary, I present the aforementioned Carew and Ibrahimovic.

Also, it's just not true that "only scots can play for scotland". Anyone without international apps for another national side can play for scotland.


Clearly, you know nothing about British Football, "A Gentleman's game played by thugs".

Again you fail miserably to read my post.

Football isn't about the premier league sides. Football is about the 9-year old.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Again you fail miserably to read my post.

Football isn't about the premier league sides. Football is about the 9-year old.

All the nine year-olds want to be Beckham when they grow up, or a Firm Hooligan; depending on Dad. Or, they just grow up with emotional problems because their masculinity is all tied up in a pathetic football team.

So, it's about both because you can't have one without the other.

[HoreTore]

All the nine year-olds want to be Beckham when they grow up, or a Firm Hooligan; depending on Dad. Or, they just grow up with emotional problems because their masculinity is all tied up in a pathetic football team.

Rubbish.

But hey, I suppose them computers are a healthy activity too... Let's save those kids from sports! Let them sit on their bottoms by themselves all day! Yes, that's so much better than a youth spent on silly things like physical activity and social interaction!

[The Stranger]

All the nine year-olds want to be Beckham when they grow up, or a Firm Hooligan; depending on Dad. Or, they just grow up with emotional problems because their masculinity is all tied up in a pathetic football team.

So, it's about both because you can't have one without the other.


And all the girls want to be britney spears... and all the other guys want to be like 50 cent, so music also corrupts the youth. and children play GTA4 will wanna grow up and become gangbangers... so ban pcgames. And than there is the odd case that wants to grow up and become like bush or clinton or obama... so ban presidents too. this argument is getting old... everything you do affects/corrupts you in some way or another. its entirely up to the person the way he reacts to it.

I've played football all my life, its a great way to meet people and make friends. you are busy being healthy and you learn a lot of valuable skills. my team was fairly "racially" mixed and I also learned cultural differences and similarities and to respect them.

there are always reasons for a child to be unhappy... but i think more children grow up with emotional problems because they were bullied at school than because their masculinity was tied up in football. But to say that school inspires racism and violence?

[Husar]

But hey, I suppose them computers are a healthy activity too... Let's save those kids from sports! Let them sit on their bottoms by themselves all day! Yes, that's so much better than a youth spent on silly things like physical activity and social interaction!

Rubbish.

The only thing I got out of playing football with the other kids was social discrimination, football makes people become bullies and all other sorts of ugly things. How exactly this is healthy by the amount of knee/leg operations some of them go through is a mystery to me.
Oh and since when are computers the only alternative to football?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Do you think that certain ministers provide an outlet for the thugs?

They probably have protected them at times when they knew bad things were going on. What's with the random diversion though, I though we were talking about football?


Nonsense. As evidence to the contrary, I present the aforementioned Carew and Ibrahimovic.

Also, it's just not true that "only scots can play for scotland". Anyone without international apps for another national side can play for scotland.

O RLY? In that case I'll sign for San Marino, I reckon I could make their team and I get to play against the top guys in the world...


Football isn't about the premier league sides. Football is about the 9-year old.

Football is about the premier league sides. It's also about the championship sides, the coca-cola league sides, the conference sides, the amateur sides, the sunday league sides, and the childrens teams.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to argue that football is bad, since I like football, it's my favourite sport and I played it up until I was maybe 15 or so, and I still go to watch my local team every week. But it is silly how this argument is getting so polarised, football can bring good and bad sides, OK? :yes:

[HoreTore]

O RLY? In that case I'll sign for San Marino, I reckon I could make their team and I get to play against the top guys in the world...

No problemo. Just gain citizenship, and if you don't have international games for another side, you're free to play for San Marino. Where you're born is irrelevant to which national side you play for. What matters is your citizenship. Hence why Patrick Vieira could play for France, even though he's from Senegal.


Anyway, I'm not meaning to argue that football is bad, since I like football, it's my favourite sport and I played it up until I was maybe 15 or so, and I still go to watch my local team every week. But it is silly how this argument is getting so polarised, football can bring good and bad sides, OK? :yes:

YES!

Have I ever said anything else? Like you have argued that religion has positive effects, I have argued that football has positive effects. Because you linked football with domestic violence, I linked christianity with domestic violence. Tit for tat.

[Husar]

Tit for tat.

AKA revenge, and since when is that a good thing? :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

AKA revenge, and since when is that a good thing? :inquisitive:

You're German, Husar, I understand why you wouldn't want people to take revenge for what germany has done in the past.... ~;)

[Viking]

I'm not sure if that something anyone would consider anyway, remembering what happened after Versailles.. :smash:

[Rhyfelwyr]

No problemo. Just gain citizenship, and if you don't have international games for another side, you're free to play for San Marino. Where you're born is irrelevant to which national side you play for. What matters is your citizenship. Hence why Patrick Vieira could play for France, even though he's from Senegal.

It's not that simple, Viera, Henry etc only got to play for France due to Senegal being a former colony, otherwise they wouldn't have had the opportunity.

Hey, will you be decked in the national colours next Wednesday with a flag on your wall like a good fan/nationalist? We're gonna get revenge after that donkey Iwelumo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqkShPKgAbw) let you off the hook last time...


YES!

Have I ever said anything else? Like you have argued that religion has positive effects, I have argued that football has positive effects. Because you linked football with domestic violence, I linked christianity with domestic violence. Tit for tat.

Bah! Some people were suggesting that sport is all good and always works to bring people together, I simply said that that is not always the case. And then you brought up Christianity! :whip:

[HoreTore]

It's not that simple, Viera, Henry etc only got to play for France due to Senegal being a former colony, otherwise they wouldn't have had the opportunity.

Henry was born outside Paris.

And yes, it is that simple. Get citizenship, and you can play for the national team. The reason it rarely happens, is because good players usually get their national debut before they've played 3-5 years in a foreign league... But we(as in Norway) are always trying to convince the foreign goalies to switch nationality to play for our national team, as our own goalies are.... well, I'm trying to avoid warning points, so.... And we also tried it with Alanzinho before he was sold off to turkey.

For more examples, I give you:
- Mikkel Diskerud, from Oslo, declared for the US
- Lukas Podolski and Miroslav Klose, from Poland, playing for Germany
- Eduardo da Silva, born in Rio, playing for Croatia


Hey, will you be decked in the national colours next Wednesday with a flag on your wall like a good fan/nationalist? We're gonna get revenge after that donkey Iwelumo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqkShPKgAbw) let you off the hook last time...

Not in a million years.

My shirt remains brown (http://www.mif.no).


Bah! Some people were suggesting that sport is all good and always works to bring people together, I simply said that that is not always the case. And then you brought up Christianity! :whip:

Bah! I never read threads before barging in! All I saw was you accusing football of domestic violence in a thread on religion!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Henry was born outside Paris.

And yes, it is that simple. Get citizenship, and you can play for the national team. The reason it rarely happens, is because good players usually get their national debut before they've played 3-5 years in a foreign league... But we(as in Norway) are always trying to convince the foreign goalies to switch nationality to play for our national team, as our own goalies are.... well, I'm trying to avoid warning points, so.... And we also tried it with Alanzinho before he was sold off to turkey.

For more examples, I give you:
- Mikkel Diskerud, from Oslo, declared for the US
- Lukas Podolski and Miroslav Klose, from Poland, playing for Germany
- Eduardo da Silva, born in Rio, playing for Croatia

True, but this recent phenomenon is the sort of thing that makes national football teams a bit redundant. If it's just going to turn into another club scene where you can sign who you want, then what's the point?


Bah! I never read threads before barging in! All I saw was you accusing football of domestic violence in a thread on religion!

Maybe we could just compromise and blame everything on the Church of Rome?

:clown:

[rvg]

Maybe we could just compromise and blame everything on the Church of Rome?

Careful now. Having a sense of humor is strongly discouraged here.

[The Stranger]

It's not that simple, Viera, Henry etc only got to play for France due to Senegal being a former colony, otherwise they wouldn't have had the opportunity.

Hey, will you be decked in the national colours next Wednesday with a flag on your wall like a good fan/nationalist? We're gonna get revenge after that donkey Iwelumo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqkShPKgAbw) let you off the hook last time...

Bah! Some people were suggesting that sport is all good and always works to bring people together, I simply said that that is not always the case. And then you brought up Christianity! :whip:

not exactly becayse Afellay and Aisatti (both of full maroccan decent, however born and raised in holland) can play international apps for holland as long as they havent played any other int. caps for another country's first team. and afaik marocco has never been a dutch colony or anything like it.

[LittleGrizzly]

All that is required to play for a national team is a grandparent who was a citizen or spending three years inside the country...

Move to San Marino and you could be in the national team within a matter of years... aslong as your half decent (I assume there are plenty of San Marinians who also love football and would like to play in the national side)

Militant Athiests are probably one of my biggest hates... i don't even nessecarily disagree with alot of the stuff they say but when will these idiots learn that attacking something usually strengthens people behind it (unless its a fatal blow) take Ryfelwyr's story as an example.. the attacks made his belief stronger...

I think the world would be better off without religion on the whole... but then i also think the world would probably be as equally well off if there were only the more moderate religious left (moderate in terms of views rather than zeal, see fanatical muslim jihadists or fred phelps as examples of what i mean as non moderate)

Its another thing to divide us...